User talk:Bjelleklang

Please note that unless otherwise stated, I will reply here and notify you with this!

This page does not contain all previous posts, please see the archives in the box to the right ->

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

This is being sent to you as a member of WikiProject Articles for creation

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Articles for creation for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (push) @ 20:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with the article? Pop Fiction and Sizzle Books are imprints of Summit Media. This must not be deleted.Sweetchloe16 (talk) 13:49, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@

general notability guideline. A suggestion might be to drop the lists of books, compress the text a little and merge it into the article on Summit Media. You can also then create a List of books published by Summit Media listing the books, awards and so on. But as it stands, I don't think the imprint is notable by itself. Bjelleklang - talk 14:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

@Bjelleklang:; can you retain it because we have to separate the Pop Fiction and Sizzle Books article from the Summit Media article. How about if i renamed it to List of Pop Fiction and Sizzle Books Published by Summit Media. Sweetchloe16 (talk) 14:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sweetchloe16:; who are 'we' in this context? Also, why does the article have to be a separate one from Summit Media? Bjelleklang - talk 14:20, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bjelleklang:; excuse me, where is the "we" in the context? We, the craetor of this article and me. by the way, we are not the contributor for the Summit Media article. we are only fans of its imprints Pop Fiction and Sizzle Books. Some followers of this articles are collectors of thess books. We are trying to create an article that will list all the books to help them keep track of their collections. I hope you understand us. With regards to the sections without citations, I am requesting for it to be semi-protected to avoid vandalism. The history part must not be stated in the article but I cannot remove it as someone posted it for a reason. Sweetchloe16 (talk) 14:27, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@

policy on having no specific point of view. If you want to get rid of it, start a discussion on the article talkpage. And you still didn't answer my question; why can't me merge the info about the imprint into the existing article on Summit Media and create a list of books they have published? Bjelleklang - talk 14:36, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi, thanks for warning User:Neyn. You might be interested to see this: WP:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mrashid364. Regards, kashmiri ^TALK 19:54, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kashmiri: Already seen it, got a checkuser to help me out. Have closed two AN3 cases, and I'm about to reply to User:Neyn now. Bjelleklang - talk 19:57, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bjelleklang: Thanks :) kashmiri ^TALK 20:00, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		In appreciation of your efficient behind-the-scenes work to contain an aggressive sock farm. kashmiri TALK 23:27, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		In appreciation of your efficient behind-the-scenes work to contain an aggressive sock farm. kashmiri TALK 23:37, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bjelleklang, FYI, I suspect user REPARADOR of being a

@Cyphoidbomb: Thanks, I saw another SPI on the same user as well; Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/REPARADOR. I decided not to block REPARADOR as he was reverting the removal of a source that seemed legitimate. Bjelleklang - talk 22:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bjelleklang. Thank you very much for your help in ending the harassment by that user. If you don't mind, at the 3RRN report you added the result "blocked", but I think since the filer was blocked, perhaps a mention can be added that it was the filer of the report who got blocked. Thank you again. Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:42, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:03, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Bjelleklang, I am so relieved about your 3RR decision on 11 January. I have allowed myself to suffer under this editor for the past 12 months, that I ve been editing on WP. I cannot tell you how grateful I am for you to look at things and take action- unlike all the other admins we "petitioned". I didnt look who you are until posting this, but I am not surprised. What a breath of fresh air ! Thanks !--Wuerzele (talk) 08:21, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For investing time in getting to the bottom of an aggressive sock farm which was marring several AfD discussions. Thanks for your time and effort! MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time for the notes & suggestions with the rejection Bjelleklang. I've been on a long holiday, but I’d like to keep going and try & get the submission right next time.

Sorry to make your job harder by being overambitious. I tried to offer as complete & balanced an article as I could, which was reckless for a first time effort.

I've read the link you offered & I think Greybull is notable. I knew nothing about them, but when they were headline news in all papers & on TV last year, I tried to look them up & was surprised that for a company owning such major parts of the UK high street and other business sectors, there was no wiki mention and no business summary visible elsewhere.

Re your suggestions;

1) “remove contact info”; That would be their address & company nr? Will do. (other wiki company pages gave HO addresses, so I tried to copy them). I’ll reduce it to ‘of London, England’

2) “Keep the article short” Agreed, I’ll cut it down.

3) “Remove contents not directly related to the company” OK I see several & will do; (Greybull’s purchases seem often in tandem with another investor, so I thought that relevant – but it’s certainly not vital).

4) “Focus on why Greybull Capital is notable” That’s tricky. I think it is the big companies that it owns which makes Greybull notable. It owns, has shut-down & has rescued household names who are on all main high-streets. I’ll try adding a short heading paragraph at the top, to justify why it is notable.

5) “Find relevant references that primarily discuss the company and not companies they own or the owners of Greybull” I did have a hunt & will look again. But the many articles I’ve read on Greybull concentrate on their current purchases or deal. Little is visible on what the company is. I quoted a journalist’s description of them as being an address with an unmarked bell push on the wall.

6) “Ignore the companies it owns” Hopefully there some leeway allowed here? Unlike normal companies, Greybull seems effectively to be just the sum of the companies it owns. Take away those companies’ details & Greybull (though very big in jobs, business & financially), might just be physically described as email address with a doorbell.

7) [Don’t primarily discuss] “…the owners of Greybull” A journalist said they have a telephonist, but unlike a normal companies of such high value, Greybull appears to be effectively just its 3 owners. Yet it is a company owning & controlling £100M’s of UK business, so the ownership does seems important. I appreciate transient shareholders are not relevance to most companies, but Greybull is an investment vehicle for its 3 owners.

So could I ask 3 questions before I try a resubmission?

1) Do you think it would be acceptable to keep the companies it owns in the current heading format? (I’ll reduce the entry sizes)

2) If so, can we keep the 4 smaller companies on the list (I’ll try & reduce their single sentence entries). Happy to remove them if asked, but it seems to me that the interest here is that Greybull runs huge companies when it co-ordinates other investors; but it also owns outright & runs medium size ones itself. These smaller companies are also of serious size (£5M companies / or employing 400 / or dominating their business sector)

3) This company is unusual & as an investment & management vehicle for its 3 owners, so is it OK to keep some of the ownership part in. I think owners might themselves be described as notable, giving national TV & journalist interviews. But I’ll aim to halve the 6 paragraphs in this part.

Regards Geoff — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.28.26.168 (talk) 13:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@

GNG is the most important thing to consider here; having notable owners doesn't make the company notable; if they happen to be interviewed frequently you need to look at the context. If a CEO is interviewed for being a successful CEO, he might be notable. If he is interviewed as a representative of the company he leads, the company (and not the CEO) might be notable. It all really boils down to finding sources good enough to satisfy the requirement stated in the GNG; if you can do that the rest should be fairly easy. Bjelleklang - talk 20:37, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi and thanks for your comments. I have 2 quick questions for you:

1. how can I change the title? it seems almost impossible to do that 2. as you advised I would like to add a kind of synopsis right after the title and before the content. But again, I can't seem to do that, all content goes under "content"

thanks in advance, Monica — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soniamo (talk • contribs) 15:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Soniamo:

1. - To change the title, simply move the page. Go to this page to move it.
2. - If you add text before the first heading it will show up above the table of contents. Headings are denoted by equal signs; so add your text before the first ==Background==.

Feel free to ask if you have any further questions. Bjelleklang - talk 19:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

great, thanks a lot! I managed to change the title and added a small introduction! got it now! cheers, Monica

Hello Bjelleklang. I'm glad to see you trying to moderate at

I am extremely bothered by EdJohnston and his understanding of partisan editing. Even efforts to balance the topic and give it a genuinely neutral feel have been summarily dismissed. I have been served a ban merely for including facts without any POV. The articles Mufaddal Saifuddin, Mohammed Burhanuddin and Dawoodi Bohra in particular have been allowed to have a malign and negative POV only with references to groups that are not in support of the community and its practises.

These articles are imbalanced, unfavourable to the subjects in them and there is simply no fair arbitration being done by people who actually have any knowledge of the community or the leaders in these articles. I can find not onesingle favourable mention in any of them.

You seem to be a diligent and careful appraiser and I would very much appreciate your careful looking into this.Noughtnotout (talk) 14:43, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you are here in order to get the ban lifted I'm sorry to disappoint you. Please follow the instructions left by User:EdJohnston and make a formal appeal. Bjelleklang - talk 22:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

hello, Thank you for your advice and assistance. i understand most of what you are striving to achieve and will continue to do my best to work withinthe guidelines. With regard to the things at the top of the article, there was only a very brief stud article here in December 2014, so all references to things that date from 2010-2014, are no longer relevant to the article that has been generated in recent weeks. The article is in a prose format. It has citations for verification. It is not an orphan. I am an artist and know the work of the subject. I understand the prose to be mostly information written in the style of other Wikipedia entries I have studied. The article is full of real information. Putting up these blatant headings above this article is very discouraging has the feeling that there is some other motive other than reviewing the current article that has been generated without the former article being there in any form. All the very best, ~~Joan~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joan Silver (talk • contribs) 09:11, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@

reliable sources for information; and websites or material created by people or organizations closely related to the subject of an article isn't considered reliable. Bjelleklang - talk 09:22, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello Again,

I am trying to understand and will review my previous content. There were many references used that came from the web. I now feel pretty discouraged by the removal of so much content that took ages to source and reference. She is an outstanding Australian who has done things in many areas with high calibre people. I will give up for now. ~~Joan Silver|Joan Silver~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joan Silver (talk • contribs) 09:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Joan Silver: Keep in mind that everything is available in the history of the page, so instead of writing everything from scratch, you can copy sections from there and fix them as needed. And remember to sign posts on talkpages with four tildes ~~~~. Bjelleklang - talk 09:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you. When I feel up to it again, I will bring up the old information and see what works. I am confused about signing these talk bits. Is this how to use the four tildes <nwikiJoan Silver (talk) 10:04, 19 January 2015 (UTC)JoanSilverJoan Silver (talk) 10:04, 19 January 2015 (UTC)</nowiki> ?[reply]

Edits to this page over the last few days have several verifiability issues, Nd other editorial problems. Also, just noticed; I think it's a walled garden. Bigger problem too: the multi-million dollars sales reports are massively contentious. A little more balance may be needed on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.149.35.115 (talk) 08:12, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

also, edit history looks suspiciously like sock puppetry.

It looks like a lot of the contributions to this page came from accounts involved in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Janine_Thompson. GoneWilde (talk) 13:16, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@GoneWilde: Thanks for telling me; I knew about the SPI and had a feeling they were connected. Unfortunately I've been too busy to help for the past few days :/ Bjelleklang - talk 21:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

my recent edit to this just got reverted and the explanation doesn't seem right. My gut feeling on this is another sock. Could you take a look please? GoneWilde (talk) 01:00, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, never mind. It seems to address the opposing sources, although it is a little wordy. GoneWilde (talk) 02:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have reopened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Janine_Thompson as Trevor Brook seems to behave and edit in a similar manner to the socks and was created two days after the socks got banned. GoneWilde (talk) 21:40, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		Thankyou for intervening when it was needed GoneWilde (talk) 01:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Benfica is the biggest club in the world, according to the FIFA and the Guiness Book of Records (quotation on page). Please don't revert my change without presenting a valid reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pt78 (talk • contribs) 12:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Pt78: You are replacing a fairly recent source (November 2014) with an outdated one from 2006. I have explained this on your talkpage[1] as well as twice in the edit history of the article[2]. Bjelleklang - talk 12:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Guinness Book of World Records entry is the record established in 2006. There's still not a new record. The FIFA source is actual. The source you provide is not from the Bundesliga. Stop reverting my editing or you be blocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pt78 (talk • contribs) 12:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Pt78: Fair enough, its the record established in 2006. However; it's still outdated, and is challenged by the source you replaced, which is newer. Just because someone set a record several years ago, we don't go around presenting that as still current if others have challenged it; especially as they now claim to have almost 100.000 more supporters than the old record. Fifa also presents a lower number than what the Bundesliga article claims, so it's plain wrong to state that Benefica is the biggest club as a fact when we have at least one source contradicting it. Bjelleklang - talk 12:44, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So I think that the right thing for you to say is that "according to bundesliga numbers Bayern is the biggest club". Such status was not confirmed by FIFA nor recognized by the GBR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pt78 (talk • contribs) 12:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Pt78: Please take a look at Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. Presenting Benfica as the biggest club is wrong when there are multiple reliable sources stating otherwise ([3], [4], [5]). These are reliable sources that are newer than the ones you base your opinion on; and are no more or less reliable than FIFA or the Guinness book of World Records. The fact that we don't know what Benfica's current membership number is at right now doesn't matter; reliable sources have heard the claim that Bayern has a larger membership and decided to publish the claim; and that is all we need to state so in the article. Before you do any further reverts I strongly advise you to participate in the discussions at the talkpages for Benfica and/or Bayern where this very issue has been discussed before. Also, I'd appreciate it if you could indent your posts and sign them properly using four tildes (~~~~). Bjelleklang - talk 21:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think KansasBear, HistoryOfIran and Edward321 of one bangs. All of them are uzbekophobs. They even the Uzbek of Bedilya too wanted to make not the Uzbek .They in the page of Uzbeks added nothing but much that removed without explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SAlfanfafafa (talk • contribs) 07:32, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@

civil, don't accuse others of being uzbekophobs and participate in the discussion. Bjelleklang - talk 07:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you for this warning on JimMacAllistair's talk page, but I do not think it will do any good. His edits on other articles follow the same pattern. Regarding your AN3 comment, please correct this statement: "You're both currently at three reverts each ..." I reverted this editor only twice, not three times, in the past 24 hours: here and here. In each case, I reverted incorrect and unsourced changes to the article by this editor. Regards, Bede735 (talk) 22:51, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Sharon Davson page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a

Hello, you declined semi-protection of

The reason for this Not enough activity is that both User:Iselilja and myself are using a slow revert policy; but please take a look at this IP activity in the hours after your descicion. IMHO this calls for page protection. Bw --Orland (talk) 09:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to respond to Prhartcom's question, unfortunately, he deleted my comment. I will post it here if you don't mind.

@Prhartcom: You somehow "forgot" to mention three very important points.

• You became involved the moment you manipulated someone into adding a version that suited Curly while the discussion was still taking place. So do us all a big favour and drop the act of the so called uninvolved editor.
• A few hours later, in what you described as blatant canvassing, you asked Curly to support you (which he did almost instantaneously).
• You attempted to discredit those whom you disagree with by trying to guess where they're from, what they care about, what they do for a living and most importantly, by calling them geeks, trolls, immature and schoolyard bullies (I'll be more than glad to provide Bjelleklang with a diff that proves it).

You're trying to manipulate an admin by pretending to be a learner while where you were heading was obvious right from the beginning. The reason is quite obvious (you do your "friend" a favour and expect one in return, just like you did before). Who cares about what the others have to say so long as you get what you want.

@Bjelleklang: I contacted Nick yesterday and predicted exactly what Prhartcom was trying to achieve with his "innocent" question. He assured me that you are an experienced admin and that I should trust your judgement (which I do), however, I thought you might like to know all the facts before making any decision. MoorNextDoor (talk) 23:10, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MoorNextDoor: Regardless of his intentions, the outcome is the same :) If he indeed is trying to manipulate me it's not really going to do much for him; as an admin my task is to prevent disruption and promote cooperation, regardless of how un/involved he is. I blocked you and two others to stop the EW going on two days ago, and hopefully it wont come to that again. If a new EW appears to break out though, the article will be protected and any edits have be requested from the talkpage where a discussion should take place before it's approved. At least that's my view; blocking again won't really do much to resolve any underlying issues, and will only serve to drive people away from the article. Bjelleklang - talk 23:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bjelleklang: I understand perfectly, I just wanted to draw your attention to the canvassing issue which, as far as I'm concerned, is a major one. MoorNextDoor (talk) 23:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Celia Berrell is a very notable poet. very few poets ever get published. She has her work in the High School Text books in Three Countries - Australia, Ireland and Canada. Education institutions in those countries consider her work worth studying by their students. She is also an 'approved resource' for the Isaac Newton Institute for Mathematical Sciences in the UK. She is also regularly published in the CSIRO Magazine - a national magazine for those interested in science related matters. This is extremely rare for a poet. She has received a grant and had a large body of work vetted by the James Cook University in Queensland. She has a book of her poems published, and many more attributes. i understood by adding this and working on her site, the potential 'deletion' would be removed as I had also logged an objection while editing and improving the content. Berrell is becoming one of Australia's most notable poets. The references on the site all attest to the notability Sarah Thinking 26 (talk) 00:57, 30 January 2015 (UTC)Sarah Thinking 26Sarah Thinking 26 (talk) 00:57, 30 January 2015 (UTC) ~~Sarah thinking26~~[reply]

@Sarah Thinking 26: It's not about being published, it's about having reliable sources for establishing notability. She is a writer as well, and the sources present when I nominated it indicated that some of the credits mentioned in the article was for her as a writer where she also happened to get a poem published (such as the in-flight magazines and others).

As for your objection to my original

prodding of the article; a "prod" is simply a deletion proposal that runs for a certain period; if it isn't challenged the article is deleted. Once you did that without adding sources that satisfied me of her notability, I decided to do a formal deletion nomination. That will run for 5 days giving the community a chance to argue either for or against deletion, as well as to propose other actions (such as redirection). Bjelleklang - talk 22:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello, I noticed something that needs to be changed on the WWE Championship page, I was going to do it myself but the page is locked & protected to prevent vandalism. I then noticed that you can edit the page.. Instead of "John Cena (12 times)", can you please put "John Cena (15 times)" because that's the number of wwe championship reigns John Cena has had. Please & thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMizIsAwesome24 (talk • contribs) 14:46, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@

reliable source confirming the number? Bjelleklang - talk 15:11, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

@Bjelleklang here is the source to prove that John Cena is indeed a 15-time WWE Champion. http://www.classicalite.com/articles/9518/20140702/john-cena-wwe-world-heavyweight-champion-15-time-winner-2k15.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMizIsAwesome24 (talk • contribs) 03:30, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your determination at

1. 2015-02-02 22:22 [6]
2. 2015-02-02 22:23 [7]
3. 2015-02-02 22:49 [8]
4. 2015-02-03 21:24 [9]

I thought that these "counted" as the requisite four reverts within 24 hours. Can you tell me how I made a mistake, so I can do it correctly if necessary in the future? —

Hi, hope you didn't miss this question. Really interested in what the disconnect is/was here.

talk) 16:10, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

@

Brianhe: Hi, sorry for taking so long to respond to you, but I've been busy offwiki for the past few days. I honestly don't know what to say on this one, it was clearly a 3RR violation and he should have been blocked. I somehow overlooked it and messed it up. I have taken a look at his recent edits, and he seems to behave himself now, so it will be wrong of me to block him several days after the violation. However, if you do see someone editwarring again, don't hesitate to let me know. Again, sorry for overlooking such an obvious violation. Bjelleklang - talk 19:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Hey, just a heads up, users arer allowed to remove active block notices per the "clarification" of

Thanks for letting me know, I double checked the policy and decided to let it slide just in case I was wrong as it wasn't specified as an exception. Bjelleklang - talk 19:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

youtube is not a reliable source, seriously. You think the video on there, that someone magically hardcoded in the CORRECT f.... name. I also have recorded the episode from TV on my HD GENIE BOX. You people are like dealing with people who are missing a few marbles in the bunch. Get f... real. The episode for air crash investigation S14E01 is Choosing Sides. What does it take to burn that into those .... skulls of you 2. God damn funny how every episode out there of this episode all are titled "CHOOSING SIDES". but yet you 2 .... want to make others think you are smart, but yet can not provide 1 video to me that shows the title as M1 Plane Crash. I find that f... HILARIOUS. Bunch of little kids with no jobs or lives wanting to play power control and have no f... clue what they are talking about. You want to talk reliable, for god sakes, there are 50 web sites that list titles and episode numbers for every TV show and movie out there. They do not always jive with each other. That is how reliable your "RELIABLE" is. So get off your piddy pots and grow up and take it like a man and accept you are f.... wrong. Seahawks65 (talk) 06:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Responded here. Bjelleklang - talk 19:22, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what to make of your statement at

@Nyttend: Thanks for spotting it; my comment was intended for Template:History of Korea which was protected for 3 months. I protected WP:RDS for three days. Bjelleklang - talk 20:24, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Makes a lot more sense :-) At first I was shocked that you'd T-protect a very public page for more than a tiny amount of time (it's meant for ordinary users to be able to use!), especially after a request for just two or three days, but when I checked the page and saw that an IP had edited it hours after your last comment, I realised that there was a mistake somewhere. Nyttend (talk) 20:32, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure RD/S needs 3 days of semiprotection, if semiprotection at all. The last trolling was almost 24 hours ago, and it gets frequent good-faith edits from IPs, so it's generally never protected for more than a few hours at a time. Mr.Z-man 21:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking action to protect the Xiongnu page due to the edit warring of Uniquark9. You may wish to know, however, that this is a pattern of behavior for this user. He frequently blanks his talk page to hide all the other warnings and notices placed there. He was blocked in December for using a sock account in an edit war. There was a complaint against him placed on the ANI board recently. Distressingly, that has now been archived with no action taken, despite every user participating in the discussion being for some sort of sanction, including a topic ban. It is baffling to me that no admin took further action against this user. Everywhere he goes he edit wars, causes disruption, is abrasive to other users, and likely engages in sock puppetry. I encourage you to review this recent complaint. Protecting one page from his disruption is simply not enough. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 01:49, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Laszlo Panaflex; he basically have one choice now; either to participate or to stay away. If he continues to revert once the protection wears out using the same arguments as before, he's likely to end up with a block. Bjelleklang - talk 01:58, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well he was already blocked once, yet his behavior has continued unabated. I've given up working on the pages he becomes involved in because nothing is ever done about him and his sock compatriots. And for that matter, you blocked the page in the version that he has been warring to keep. So he wins again. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 02:09, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I can't "decide" what version to protect. That would make me involved, I have to protect the latest revision as long as it doesn't blatantly violate eg. the BLP. The best thing you can do now is to propose an edit, give it a few hours and then tag it with the protected edit template. As long as you have good arguments for it it shouldn't be a problem getting it through. Bjelleklang - talk 02:13, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Bjelleklang - talk 06:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can something please be done about Trackteur? He is clearly intent on edit-warring, and his English is incompetent, as has been pointed out multiple times and as is evident in his edit comment "and not confusion print run and sold out" and adding text like "print run of 60,000 in French language". Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 10:19, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He appears to be in the middle of another edit war, as well. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 09:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:AGF

. 09:41, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Look how long it took him to revert again to the same broken English. This is following a notice on his talk page, and having his errors explain to him several times . He's also trying to hide what he did with the edit comment "répétition, space". Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 09:50, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the user

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Allen Jones (whistleblower), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kickback. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are an administrator and have posted at

@

WP:TPO moving other posts aren't allowed, but you can remedy this quite easy by adding {{small|Reply to [[User:Wikimandia]]:}} at the start of your post. This should avoid any confusion. Bjelleklang - talk 14:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Reply to

WP:TPG#Fixing layout errors where indenting/moving another editors post is considered acceptable. FWIW, no content was changed, I just moved the post to make the thread easier to follow. I was directly responding to another editors post, one indentation level below their's, so I didn't think a "reply to" was necessary. Anyway, it's a mute point now. Live and learn. Thanks again for the clarification and your time. - Marchjuly (talk) 15:24, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

No problem, happy I could help :) Bjelleklang - talk 15:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for having protect Lynn's book against vandalism. I notice that TheRedPenOfDoom continue to delete what he doesn't like of the page. Could you do something for this ?

Thanks !

Darwin1986 (talk) 23:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi saw your changes to 'Inflammist' article. Meant to add in my revert that maybe the article should also be deleted as I to only found Google references that were based in this article. While there are people / performers who could be called 'inflammists' (I know some) there are not any reliable sources to back up this. I would agree with your suggestion to delete this article (because additionally there are no mainstream dictionary definitions I have found for the term). However it would be good to add to / change the Pyrotechnic article to include information re the use of fire and hand held fireworks. Pyrotechnicians do not only use explosive devices (in fact the lead in this article misleads). What do you think?Robynthehode (talk) 08:54, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Robynthehode:; I think the lead is fairly inclusive; A pyrotechnician is a person who is responsible for the safe storage, handling, and functioning of pyrotechnics and pyrotechnic devices. The article on Pyrotechnics starts by saying that it is the science of using materials capable of undergoing self-contained and self-sustained exothermic chemical reactions for the production of heat, light, gas, smoke and/or sound. I'm not sure if we need to be so specific, but feel free to change the articles if you want to. Bjelleklang - talk 22:18, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bjelleklang:: There is some confusion. I was referring to the article about Pyrotechnicians not the one on Pyrotechnics. Didn't check to see if there were both. Yes I agree with you re the Pyrotechnics article. As you may see on the Pyrotechnicians article the lead mentions 'explosives' rather than the more inclusive definition in the other article. Happy to change the lead but does Wikipedia need both articles?Robynthehode (talk) 15:18, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Robynthehode: It depends; if there are enough material and sources to support two articles there is no problem having them. Bjelleklang - talk 22:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bjelleklang: Hello, i'm just replying to your message on my talk page, The reason i had reinserted "non-notable" manufactures is i have found websites of them, proving to be active, but now from your message i know that simply a website is not enough, but my OCD senses are going crazy that some manufactures that i had believed to be notable is no longer on the page. Could you please list some ways to check notability for manufacturers that don't have a Wikipedia page? Luiskeniosis (talk) 19:13, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Luiskeniosis: Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline lists some examples of what to look for. If you can find articles that talk about the company, and not just specific (recent) products you usually have a good start, especially if they mention the history of the company. Also keep in mind that if you can find an article or two, you might also have what it takes to start an article about the company; one sentence is enough to make a stub. If you find any articles about the companies and are uncertain if they are enough, please let me know and I'll be happy to look at them as well. If we can expand the list with more companies it would be great! Bjelleklang - talk 21:29, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is as a gentle reminder for the COI related proofs given on my talk page on your request, the user ruqn has proven close connection to one of the claimants namely Mufaddal and to undermine the contents of the article he has put the COI tag eventhough he is not a major contributor to that article. I am a major contributor to the article and the tag indirectly accuses me of COI. The contents of that article were not just written unopposed but only after a thorough discussion with 3rd party editors on the talk page and the article was also reviewed later. The article sufficiently cites the various articles relevant to the controversy hence I find no reason to have a COI tag. No other 3rd party editors involved in the article since inception have agreed to addition of the tag, inspite of repeated calls.Summichum (talk) 05:50, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Summichum: Sorry for the delay in responding to this, and thanks for the links. First of all, please don't read too much into the picture, as we have no way of knowing the context. If he has admitted to being a member of the DB, please give the exact diff _every time_ you make the allegation that he has a COI, otherwise people might mistake it for bad-faith allegations. Second; the COI tag is to inform readers that a contributor to the article has a COI. If he has a COI as you suggest, the tag might be reasonable. It doesn't accuse you or anyone else of having a COI. Even if an article has a good amount of references, it can still be biased, so that by itself doesn't rule out the COI tag. Also, I happened to notice your latest remark at the SPI case against Md iet; "His contributions itself are evidences that it is a sock of md iet as he directly jumped to bohra articles". You did the same, didn't you? Please be careful when you present your arguments, as there is a thin line between having a good case and making bad-faith accusations.

I saw your request from the SPI page; Please find a permanent solution to this problem as md iet is creating accounts to evade block and bans and wasting admin time; sorry, but there is no such solution. If he is indeed an IP-hopping vandal (as my impression is), the only thing we can do is to block socks as they appear. Bjelleklang - talk 10:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Bjelleklang,

I'm writing regarding the rejection of my entry on Douglas L. Miller.

Thank you for your time in reviewing this entry. I'm very puzzled, however, as to why Mr. Miller is not considered worthy of inclusion, especially after I revised the entry with the first reviewer's comments in mind. I hope you can help me either improve the entry or you will reconsider it.

I'm a professional journalist, and I've done a lot of work for nonprofits, including Nobel Laureate Muhammad Yunus of Grameen Bank. I've met a lot of brilliant people in my work, but I am astounded by how much Mr. Miller has accomplished and his bold goals. I believe Mr. Miller's work, like that of Yunus, is potentially world-changing.

Most people I know don't even know what venture philanthropy is. And Mr. Miller has indeed worked to keep a low profile himself. Philanthropists tend to keep quiet, or everyone is asking them for money. However, he is quoted by no less than Harvard Business Review and numerous other sources as one of the world's leading pioneers of venture philanthropy (see my entry). This field is relatively new but growing rapidly all over the world, in large part thanks to him. As I indicated in the entry, he is responsible for almost 400 organizations donating money or professional services to needy non-profits. There is no one who has done more for the field.

As a journalist, I appreciate the need to distinguish "notable" people from others. But in a culture that increasingly declares people as "celebrities" when they have done pretty much nothing except appear on television, isn't it important to recognize those who are actually out there trying to improve the world? Your readers would benefit tremendously from this entry, as many may either want to contribute to this cause or could benefit from it.

I look forward to your response. (Also, please note, for some strange reason I could not even see your review until recently.)

Thank you again, MaBranca (talk) 10:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MaBranca: Hi. Please see my comment on the draft; "Most sources seem to be based on interviews or trivial mentions. Please provide reliable sources that contain enough information to pass the general notability guideline and the policy regarding biographies of living people.". Bjelleklang - talk 07:32, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Bjelleklang,

With reference to your deletion of the article "Naik Foundation" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naik_Foundation). We would like to kindly inform that there has been considerable reference, news articles and press releases in the topic of Naik foundation. I am given to understand that the page was again deleted in March 2015 based on a deletion article published in 2012. However the rest of the references and the awards given by the government of india between 2012 and 2015 has given much credibility to the article. Please request you to reconsider this before the decision to delete the article is taken up.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.75.83.96 (talk) 10:03, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, this article is getting hit with the same kind of vandalism as before. Could this be protected again, perhaps for a longer period than before?

Hello. [[no-go area] has been protected since Feb 8 of this year, and basically has not been edited since. Perhaps it could be reduced to semi-protected? While I find it amusing that "no-go area" is a no-go area, to change an ampersand into the word "and" I will have to leave a request on the talk page. Huw Powell (talk) 00:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Attempting wikibreak has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Shirlee Taylor Haizlip, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ansonia. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:20, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

Thank you so much for your helpful advice for the MATE-Museo Mario Testino page, I have added a new update to the main section by including some more references. A lot of the ones that we have used are from the first page on Google searches so I have done my best to find the most notable references.

Smerakumar (talk) 14:51, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the {{

As someone interested in the List of ministers of the Universal Life Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), I thought I'd let you know an RFC has been started over reliable sources. Please join in Talk:List_of_ministers_of_the_Universal_Life_Church#RFC:_Reliable_sources. Me-123567-Me (talk) 23:29, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bjelleklang. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

"extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion

with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016,

a request for comment

established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

• Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
• A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Multiple editors have objected to the inclusion of the content at issue, which is on its face sensationalist garbage. A single user wishes to restore it, claiming a spurious consensus. That editor, User:Holanthony, has a long history of problematic edits to biographies. See, for example, this ANI discussion [[10]], where Holanthony made similarly spurious complaints about reversion of their improper edits, only to have the complaint WP:BOOMERRANG and the discussion closed with a warning "that further edits posing BLP problems are likely to lead to sanctions". Sourcing biographies with tabloid garbage is unacceptable, whether the article subject is living or dead. Supporting an editor who plainly "clearly lack[s] a basic understanding of a number of polices (not limited to just BLP). Including accusations of child molesting against non-notable people in a BLP? When no charges were even brought?" (to quote just one comment in that ANI) is particularly unacceptable for an administrator. Look before you leap. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 10:08, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Please note that

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at

Hello, Bjelleklang. Voting in the

2016 Arbitration Committee elections

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

• When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
• Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
• The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

• JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

Hello, Bjelleklang. Voting in the

2017 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bjelleklang. Voting in the

2018 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I see that it is a long time since you have edited at any Wikimedia site, and nothing here for over two years.

I have left a note at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard, so it may be worthwhile replying there rather than here. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:40, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Never trust tools, double check. I am told that I missed something. My apologies. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:13, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! :) Bjelleklang - talk 14:40, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators must secure their accounts The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised. Use strong, unique passwords for your Wikipedia account and associated email Change your password now if your Wikipedia account password or email password is reused on another website, exposed, or weak Enable two-factor authentication now for improved security

View additional information

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 03:00, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This user helped promote Central Park to good article status.

You have been a significant contributor to Central Park. SilkTork (talk) 08:28, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Attempting wikibreak has been nominated for merging with Template:Wikibreak. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:18, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Chris (Bjelleklang),

Thank you for taking the time to review my article. I read your feedback and understand what is required of me for a resubmission. Your feedback will help me become a better article publisher and i look forward to learning alot from you. Your profile is to die for! very impressive. Well done for all the work you do.

Kind regards,

Oiza

• Old Dominion Athletic Conference - Brad (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Jostens Trophy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

On June 4th, you reviewed the Jostens Trophy page and declared it not significant enough of a subject to have a wikipedia page. However, the counterpart of the Jostens Trophy, the Gagliardi Trophy, does have a wikipedia page. The only differences between the two is that one is awarded to basketball players whereas the other is awarded to football players, respectively. Also, the page I submitted had much more substance than the Gagliardi page. Why on earth does one trophy have a page but the other award is not allowed to have one? I ask you to reconsider your decision, or have somebody else review my submission, as I spent a lot of hard work, time, and effort into creating a professional and informational page for the sport community.

Old Dominion Athletic Conference - Brad (talk) 21:51, 14 June 2021 (UTC) Old Dominion Athletic Conference - Brad (talk) 21:51, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected as there were no sources referenced that show that the trophy itself is notable. The closest source is the "about" article, but as it's from ODAC itself it cannot be used to assert the notability of the trophy. Good sources to use would be articles or books writing about the importance of the trophy itself, and not just the finalists or winners of the trophy. If you haven't already, please have a look at the introduction to

the notability guideline

, as it describes what is needed and why. If you have any sources you think would be useful, I'd be happy to help. We're here to build an encyclopedia after all, so I'd much rather have good sources and an additional article than not.

As for the other trophy article you mention; this has the same issue as yours. It was created way before the current draft-and-review system was introduced, so it has been without sources since sometime in 2004. As nobody has added any sources to this article at all, I have proposed it for deletion. I had a look but didn't find anything other than articles mentioning finalists and winners, and nothing in-depth on the trophy itself. Hopefully someone else can find a few good sources for it, if not it will be deleted in a week or so. If that happens it is unfortunate, but without having any criteria for what can exist on Wikipedia, it would simply become yet

another directory with no meaningful value. Bjelleklang - talk 19:06, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

I pinged you at Draft talk:Nigel Platts-Martin but haven't received a reply yet. --George Ho (talk) 22:32, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bjelleklang:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running until 31 July 2021.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
There is currently a backlog of over 2400 articles, so start reviewing articles. We're looking forward to your help!

Sent by

@

nominate it for deletion. Bjelleklang - talk 18:34, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

The article has been trimmed down to objective facts only. Long list of forecasts which were published by newspapers, media houses has been removed. And all the references are now highly reliable including two of them have their own wikipedia pages. Please check this draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Faizan_Arif Weatherforyou (talk) 06:19, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
• disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
• is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:14, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I've noticed that you are a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Norway. I'm writing this to draw your attention to my message here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Norway#Rock_art_articles,_anyone?.

If this might be of interest to you, please let me know. If not, please excuse me for distubing you. Bw --Orland (talk) 13:03, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A

. 20:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

The WikiEagle - January 2022

The WikiEagle

The WikiProject Aviation Newsletter

Volume I — Issue 1
Aviation Project • Project discussion • Members • Assessment • Outreach • The WikiEagle
Announcements After over a decade of silence, the WikiProject Aviation newsletter is making a comeback under the name The WikiEagle. This first issue was sent to all active members of the project and its sub-projects. If you wish to continue receiving The WikiEagle, you can add your username to the mailing list. For now the newsletter only covers general project news and is run by only one editor. If you wish to help or to become a columnist, please let us know. If you have an idea which you believe would improve the newsletter, please share it; suggestions are welcome and encouraged. On 16 December, an RfC was closed which determined theaerodrome.com to be an unreliable source. The website, which is cited over 1,500 articles, mainly on WWI aviation, as of the publishing of this issue. Luft46.com has been added to the list of problematic sources after this discussion. The Jim Lovell article was promoted to Featured Article status on 26 December after being nominated by Hawkeye7. The Raymond Hesselyn article was promoted to Good Article status on 4 December after being nominated by Zawed. The Supermarine Sea King article was promoted to Good Article status on 22 December after being nominated by Amitchell125. The William Hodgson (RAF officer) article was promoted to Good Article status on 26 December after being nominated by Zawed.
Members New Members KingAviationKid (Joined on 17 December) PatrickChiao (Joined on 22 December) Wp9097 (Joined on 16 December) Number of active members: 386. Total number of members: 921. Closed Discussions Featured Article assessment Jim Lovell (discussion) – Closed as promoted on 26 December 2021 Good Article assessment HAL Tejas (discussion) – Closed as not promoted on 30 December 2021 William Hodgson (RAF officer) (discussion) – Closed as promoted on 26 December 2021 Supermarine Sea King (discussion) – Closed as promoted on 22 December 2021 Raymond Hesselyn (discussion) – Closed as promoted on 4 December 2021 Deletion Timeline of Berlin Brandenburg Airport's construction (discussion ) – Closed as delete and redirect on 30 December 2021 Evergreen International Airlines Flight 17 (discussion) – Closed as keep on 25 December 2021 Requested moves Akbarpur (Ambedkar Nagar) Airstrip → Akbarpur Airstrip (discussion ) – Closed as moved on 30 December 2021 1983 Avensa Douglas DC-9 crash → Avensa Flight 007 (discussion ) – Closed as moved on 30 December 2021 Garuda Indonesia Flight 035 → Garuda Indonesian Airways Flight 035 (discussion) – Withdrawn on 28 December 2021	Article Statistics This data reflects values from DMY. Aviation pages by quality Quality Total FA 142 FL 15 A 56 GA 505 B 4,573 C 11,878 Start 15,082 Stub 18,754 List 2,539 Category 11,638 Disambig 653 File 2,713 Portal 629 Project 89 Redirect 1,518 Template 2,489 NA 66 Assessed 73,339 Unassessed 1 Total 73,340 WikiWork factors (?) ω = 250,737 Ω = 4.93
New/Ongoing Discussions Featured Article review D. B. Cooper (discussion) – Since 14 December 2021 A-class Article assessment Granville Gee Bee Model A (discussion) – Since 21 April 2020 List of aviation shootdowns and accidents during the Iraq War (discussion) – Since 22 February 2010 Good Article assessment Romanian Air Corps (discussion) – Since 25 December 2021 Jean Batten (discussion) – Since 2 October 2021 Merger proposals List of astronauts by name → List of astronauts by year of selection (discussion) – Since 10 August 2021 List of cosmonauts → List of space travelers by nationality (discussion) – Since 10 August 2021 List of space travelers by name → List of space travelers by nationality (discussion ) – Since 10 August 2021 Holidays Czech Airlines → Czech Airlines (discussion ) – Since 23 June 2021 Bendix Aviation → Bendix Corporation (discussion ) – Since 30 May 2021 discussion ) – Since 29 May 2021 discussion ) – Since 28 May 2021 Splitting proposals Family Airlines (discussion) – Since 23 November 2021 2021 Kabul airport attack (discussion) – Since 24 September 2021 discussion ) – Since 16 August 2021 Braniff International Airways (discussion) – Since 8 September 2019 Deletion List of maiden voyages (discussion) – Since 29 December 2021 Requested moves discussion ) – Since 30 December 2021 Aeropostal Alas de Venezuela Flight 108 → Aeropostal Alas de Venezuela Flight 109 (discussion) – Since 28 December 2021 Garuda Indonesia Flight 150 → Garuda Indonesian Airways Flight 150 (discussion ) – Since 28 December 2021 Garuda Indonesia Flight 206 → Garuda Indonesian Airways Flight 206 (discussion ) – Since 28 December 2021 Garuda Indonesia Flight 708 → Garuda Indonesian Airways Flight 708 (discussion ) – Since 28 December 2021 Garuda Indonesia Flight 892 → Garuda Indonesian Airways Flight 892 (discussion ) – Since 28 December 2021 TWA Flight 800 (1996) (discussion ) – Since 27 December 2021 Dynamic International Airways Flight 405 (discussion ) – Since 26 December 2021 CommutAir Flight 4281 → CommutAir Flight 4821 (discussion ) – Since 25 December 2021 discussion ) – Since 13 December 2021 discussion ) – Since 13 December 2021 discussion ) – Since 13 December 2021 Did you know Ravish Malhotra (discussion) – Since 30 December 2021 Alexander Tahy (discussion) – Since 26 December 2021 Veronica Volkersz (discussion) – Since 6 December 2021 Rudolf Szepessy-Sokoll (discussion) – Since 3 December 2021 On The Main Page Did you know... ... that the aerobatic demonstration aircraft used by SoloTürk is also used in military operations of the Turkish Air Force? (24 December)
Discuss & propose changes to The WikiEagle at The WikiEagle talk page. To opt in/out of receiving this news letter, add or remove your username from the mailing list. Newsletter contributor: ZLEA

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello! I wanted to drop a quick note for all of our

• AFCH will now show live previews of the comment to be left on a decline.
• The template {{db-afc-move}} has been created - this template is similar to {{db-move}} when there is a redirect in the way of an acceptance, but specifically tells the patrolling admin to let you (the draft reviewer) take care of the actual move.

Short and sweet, but there's always more to discuss at

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Concerned is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Concerned (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:13, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the following articles to which you have significantly contributed, are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted:

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Bengali songs recorded by Shreya Ghoshal until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:05, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

]

Job Done

		Job Done
		Awarded to Bjelleklang for good services as an admin, and for resigning the tools in a noble manner. SilkTork (talk) 18:05, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]